Wiccan Morality

[Gubbleknucker]

This is strikingly similar to my own morality.

The Wiccan ideal of morality is simple: do what you want, as long as you harm none. This rule contains another unwritten condition: do nothing that will harm yourself. Thus, if you was a Wicca abuse your body, deny it the necessities of life, or otherwise harm yourself, you're in violation of this principle.

This is more than survival. It also ensures that you'll be in good condition to take on the tasks of preserving and bettering our world, for concern and love for our planet play major roles in Wicca.

~Wicca, by Scott Cunningham

The "do as you want" part means that you should pursue your desires. It does not necessarily mean that you should spend time doing frivolous things that might be enjoyable in the short term, since that may get in the way of higher objectives that will make you happier in long run: your "higher purpose." It is not any more selfish than other outlooks; often human desires have a strong social element.



"Do no harm" is a little trickier:
Those who seek to do harm should be opposed, regardless of harm done to them in the process. If you choose to harm another you give up your rights as a human in society. Inaction can be equally violent as aggression.

Those who harm themselves should not be punished, as they are in much pain already and they pose little risk to society. They should be guided through their struggle in any way possible, and, in extreme cases, protected from themselves. If possible, they should be viewed as the victim and not the aggressor.

I also think that a Wicca, stripped of all faith, would still follow this principle, as it is not part of the faith-based dogma of magic, Goddess and God, living earth, spiritual energies, etc.
It is based in the human quality of empathy and the desire to live in a peaceful society.

[aamirsaab]

:sl:
That's actually the same as Islam (and most religions!), except without praying, Allah and the 5 pillars....and any other specific details.

[Ummu Sufyaan]

I dont mean to be rude, but whats the point of this thread :embarrass

[Uthman]

do what you want, as long as you harm none.

How would you define "harm" here, Gubbleknucker?

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[glo]

:sl:
That's actually the same as Islam (and most religions!), except without praying, Allah and the 5 pillars....and any other specific details.

I agree that Islam teaches to harm no others, but I don't think it teaches that it is alright to 'do what you want' - do you?

Drink, as long as you harm none?
Have sex, as long as you harm none?
Wear what you like, as long as you harm none?
Eat what you like, as long as you harm none?

None of these things would be acceptable in Islam ... unless your perception of 'harming oneself or others' is different to that of the majority of non-Muslims.

(I think that's what Uthman may be getting at with his question)

[Uthman]

(I think that's what Uthman may be getting at with his question)

Actually, I was just wondering whether his definition of "harm" was restricted to the physical, or whether it included the emotional as well. I was wondering whether, for example, offending another person's religious sensibilities would be included in his definition, despite the fact that this is not physical but emotional.

[AntiKarateKid]

:sl:
That's actually the same as Islam (and most religions!), except without praying, Allah and the 5 pillars....and any other specific details.

Are we reading the same post bro? It is nothing like Islam. "Do as you want as long as you don't harm anyone" has no basis in it. Here is the verse that came to mind:

"...it may be that you dislike a thing which is good for you, and that you like a thing which is bad for you. Allah knows but you do not know" Quran 2: 216

[AntiKarateKid]

I agree that Islam teaches to harm no others, but I don't think it teaches that it is alright to 'do what you want' - do you?

Drink, as long as you harm none?
Have sex, as long as you harm none?
Wear what you like, as long as you harm none?
Eat what you like, as long as you harm none?

None of these things would be acceptable in Islam ... unless your perception of 'harming oneself or others' is different to that of the majority of non-Muslims.

(I think that's what Uthman may be getting at with his question)

I agree completely Glo.

[Uthman]

It would be more accurate to say that, in Islam, we can do whatever we want within the framework that the Shari'ah provides.

[Gubbleknucker]

Actually, I was just wondering whether his definition of "harm" was restricted to the physical, or whether it included the emotional as well.

It does.

I don't consider honesty to be emotionally harmful, though, and this IS a forum on comparative religion.

Would you prefer it if I lied and told you I was Muslim?

[Amadeus85]

Wiccans? Neopagans? These are the bad fruits of freedom of religions. I would rather prefer that USA law was based strictly on puritanism, which would ban all such sects.

[Gubbleknucker]

Wiccans? Neopagans? These are the bad fruits of freedom of religions. I would rather prefer that USA law was based strictly on puritanism, which would ban all such sects.

That is simply horrible.

I don't want a law passed that would ban Christianity, despite all of my problems with it.

Our government is separate from religion for good reason. Furthermore, your new law would be undesirable to nearly everyone except the puritans. In case you had forgotten, puritans are not in the majority here, and even if they were, that wouldn't make it right.


You have the word "freedom" in your signature. Do you really believe in freedom if you don't want to allow schools of thought different from your own to exist?

[glo]

I used to be quite into paganism myself at one point in my life.

The problem I have with the 'do what you want, as long as you harm none' is how do you know that you aren't harming anyone? :?

[Gubbleknucker]

You can only do your best.

If you consider the butterfly effect, basically everything you do has the potential to cause disaster, but I don't think you are responsible for distantly related events, just as the butterfly is not responsible for the hurricane.

The butterfly flapping its wings has a potential to stop the hurricane, as well. How do you know that you are not doing immeasurable good at any one time?

[Al-Zaara]

I have a friend who is/was Wicca, following that statement and after we discussed, we came to the conclusion it's probably (and this is how she follows it) that when no intentional harm is made, when one is aware of whom it harms, one does not do it.

[glo]

I am just pondering whether behaviour which we may consider 'harmless' could cause us or others harm in ways which we may not have anticipated.

For example, having a drink or two is pretty harmless, right? But what if under the influence who do something stupid you wouldn't normally do? It could easily lead to harm.

Consensual sex outside marriage is considered pretty harmless by most, right? But what if one partner gets emotionally entangled and suffers harm?

I guess many Christians and Muslims will say that the best way to keep yourself and other free from harm is to obey God's laws ... even if we don't always see or understand what his purpose behind them may be. It's question of trust that God knows what's best for us.

Does that make sense?

[glo]

I have a friend who is/was Wicca, following that statement and after we discussed, we came to the conclusion it's probably (and this is how she follows it) that when no intentional harm is made, when one is aware of whom it harms, one does not do it.

Good point Al-Zaara.

If I understand correctly, then Islam also teaches the importance of intention.
If somebody sins unintentionally it doesn't count as sin, is that correct?

[Amadeus85]

[QUOTE=Gubbleknucker;1196964]

That is simply horrible.

I don't want a law passed that would ban Christianity, despite all of my problems with it

Im not a puritan, Im catholic, but I dont wish bad to USA, and turning many of Americans to paganism is a sign that this rich and powerful country (but spiritually shattered by hundreds and thousands of "churches") is going down. Just like ancient Rome in last centuries. Although that Im not great fan of protestant fundamentalism or puritanism, I know that members of these faiths built modern USA, not wiccans, jews, catholics or muslims. So a puritan based law in USA would be reasonable (it would guarantee hundreds years more of the USA existance, unlike this current, multi religious, multicultural doctrine).

Our government is separate from religion for good reason. Furthermore, your new law would be undesirable to nearly everyone except the puritans. In case you had forgotten, puritans are not in the majority here, and even if they were, that wouldn't make it right.

If majority choose something does it make it right? In the first democratical elections in our world the winner was Barabas. In last century majority of Germans voted for Adolf Hitler, now for example most of Americans think that sodomy is just another way of life. So please dont mess the truth with the opinion of majority. Although that Im far from being fan of puritanism it would bring at least some order and morality in this country.

You have the word "freedom" in your signature. Do you really believe in freedom if you don't want to allow schools of thought different from your own to exist?

There is writen - Is this in the name of the freedom, we have allowed to be destroyed.

Since the schools dont teach that 2+2 = 5, so the state shouldnt allow the propaganda of false to spread (vide - mormonism, scentologists, wiccans etc). But of course I know well that Americans already many times chose their way, their values and now, in 2009 A.D we see the results.

[Uthman]

It does.

Great. Would you consider the cartoons of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) that were published in Denmark several years ago as something immoral? Many Muslims felt very deeply offended by them. Is this emotional harm?

I don't consider honesty to be emotionally harmful, though

Okay. That's another point to consider though. Is your definiton of 'harm' dependent on whether you feel that you have harmed a person, or whether that person feels that you have harmed them?

Would you prefer it if I lied and told you I was Muslim?

I'm not sure what you mean. Is there a misunderstanding here? My questions are genuine.

[Gubbleknucker]

Just like ancient Rome in last centuries.

The Romans viewed Christianity in much the same way as you view neopaganism, I believe.

If majority choose something does it make it right?

You actually quoted a section in which I said that it didn't.

[Uthman]

If somebody sins unintentionally it doesn't count as sin, is that correct?

That is correct, glo.

[Gubbleknucker]

Great. Would you consider the cartoons of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) that were published in Denmark several years ago as something immoral? Many Muslims felt very deepl offended by them. Is this emotional harm?

No. If you can't speak against a group, whether it be political, religious, or scientific, for fear of 'offending' them....

Well, freedom of speech is important.

I am not familiar with the cartoons you are speaking of. Perhaps their intent WAS to be offensive, which would be wrong, but not something to be outlawed.

[aamirsaab]

I agree that Islam teaches to harm no others, but I don't think it teaches that it is alright to 'do what you want' - do you?

Drink, as long as you harm none?
Have sex, as long as you harm none?
Wear what you like, as long as you harm none?
Eat what you like, as long as you harm none?

None of these things would be acceptable in Islam ... unless your perception of 'harming oneself or others' is different to that of the majority of non-Muslims.

(I think that's what Uthman may be getting at with his question)

Are we reading the same post bro? It is nothing like Islam. "Do as you want as long as you don't harm anyone" has no basis in it. Here is the verse that came to mind:

"...it may be that you dislike a thing which is good for you, and that you like a thing which is bad for you. Allah knows but you do not know" Quran 2: 216

:sl:

I also said ''except any other specific details'' - indicating that I was mocking the vagueness of ''do as you want''. Though, in hindset, perhaps I should have taken more time in responding and made clearer points, instead of that one.

[GuestFellow]

Wiccans? Neopagans? These are the bad fruits of freedom of religions. I would rather prefer that USA law was based strictly on puritanism, which would ban all such sects.

No I do not believe they should be banned. If someone wishes to practice a particular religion then it should not really bother anyone else. It is a personal choice.

In addition, banning these sects does not sound very practical.

[Tony]

I was involved in the wiccan belief for some time when younger, some people stert with genuine desire to worship and respect nature, however from experience it leads to a need for increasing power, and from a muslims veiwpoint it is power to obtain and gain haram things, by haram methods. A very interesting system and not far from the ways of native americans. It is a relatively new name "wicca" and bunched together many different skills and practices. Wiccans by and large are peaceful,if somewhart prone to drama and secrecy for no other ends than to appear elucive. Alhamdulillah that Allah had marked me for Islam and then lead me to the straight path.

[glo]

I was involved in the wiccan belief for some time when younger, some people stert with genuine desire to worship and respect nature, however from experience it leads to a need for increasing power, and from a muslims veiwpoint it is power to obtain and gain haram things, by haram methods. A very interesting system and not far from the ways of native americans. It is a relatively new name "wicca" and bunched together many different skills and practices. Wiccans by and large are peaceful,if somewhart prone to drama and secrecy for no other ends than to appear elucive. Alhamdulillah that Allah had marked me for Islam and then lead me to the straight path.

One of the things which attracted me to Paganism was its closeness and its respect for nature ... but I realised very quickly that I could never worship nature as divine itself, and that the beauty and wonder of nature could only ever be an expression of the greatness and goodness of the One who created it.

[Proud of Islam]

Hi glo..

I agree that Islam teaches to harm no others, but I don't think it teaches that it is alright to 'do what you want' - do you?

Drink, as long as you harm none?
Have sex, as long as you harm none?
Wear what you like, as long as you harm none?
Eat what you like, as long as you harm none?

None of these things would be acceptable in Islam ... unless your perception of 'harming oneself or others' is different to that of the majority of non-Muslims.

Drink, as long as you harm none?

Drinking alcohol is harmful for the health. If we talk about the harmful effects for just the heart:
- Weakens the heart muscle and ability to pump blood (Cardiomyopathy).
- Abnormal heart signals, irregular heart beat and heart enlargement.
- Increases blood pressure, risk of heart attack and stroke.
- Inhibits production of both red and white blood cells.

And there are other effects for the other parts of the body: (http://www.shesinrecovery.com/addict...uleffects.html)

Have sex, as long as you harm none?

Sex outside marriage has very destructive effects on the individuals: man, woman and the outcome of this Sexual relationship. In addition it has a very destructive effect on the whole society.
Sex is not an aim but a mean to enjoy & establish a family to maintain & preserve the mankind. If we reduce ourselves to enjoy sex outside marriage; this would be the shortest way to destroy the mankind. We see many of its effects on men, women & children in the field of psychiatry. (http://www.islamonline.net/livedialo...GuestID=cJJqZ4)

Wear what you like, as long as you harm none?

Wearing women unclad clothes is harmful for her and the society.. Hejab highlights the Muslim woman as a pure, chaste woman and sets her apart from the immoral behavior associated with women who dress immodestly.
When a woman wears a hijab she is less likely to be harassed by men with lusty motives; she is less likely to be exploited for her beauty and feminity..
(http://www.jannah.org/sisters/hijab_protect.html)
Hijab is like closing the door of the previous point (Sex outside marriage)

Eat what you like, as long as you harm none?

Eating haram foods is harmful for the health, and if we take pork as an example: The pig is a scavenger. It is an omnivorous animal. It eats everything. There are many diseases carried from swine to man, particularly parasite infestations.
Dr. Glen Shepherd wrote the following on the dangers of eating pork in Washington Post (31 May 1952).
“One in six people in USA and Canada have germs in their muscles - trichinosis 8 from eating pork infected with trichina worms. Many people who are infected shows no symptoms. Most of those, who do have, recover slowly. Some die; some are reduced to permanent invalids. All were careless pork caters”.
He continued “No one is immune from the disease and there is no cure. Neither antibiotics nor drugs or vaccines affect these tiny deadly worms. Preventing infection is the real answer.”
(http://www.islamic-world.net/sister/h1.htm)

unless your perception of 'harming oneself or others' is different to that of the majority of non-Muslims

My sister, the badness of wrong things will never be changed even if the majority accepted them!
If our perceptions of harm are different (knowing that most scientists & doctors agree with Muslims), but all the mankind have the same system, The Judge here is Their Creator, Allah..
Allah is The Best One Who knows what is harmful and what is not, that's why we have to follow His true religion..
Exactly as what you said in this post:

I am just pondering whether behaviour which we may consider 'harmless' could cause us or others harm in ways which we may not have anticipated.

For example, having a drink or two is pretty harmless, right? But what if under the influence who do something stupid you wouldn't normally do? It could easily lead to harm.

Consensual sex outside marriage is considered pretty harmless by most, right? But what if one partner gets emotionally entangled and suffers harm?

I guess many Christians and Muslims will say that the best way to keep yourself and other free from harm is to obey God's laws ... even if we don't always see or understand what his purpose behind them may be. It's question of trust that God knows what's best for us.

Does that make sense?

Sure it does :sunny:

----------------------------------------------------------------

Longing for the Paradise (Al-Jannah) where the endless happiness…

[MSalman]

Is the term 'harm' not subjective? How do you decide what is harmful and who decides this? If this is left to individual then he can come up with any sort of definition to justify his actions.

To be honest, all these liberal ideas are self contradictory and have no absolute/universal definition and implication.

No. If you can't speak against a group, whether it be political, religious, or scientific, for fear of 'offending' them....

so it is left up to individual whether his action is harmful according to his own understanding? How can then you define what is wrong or what is right? How you perceive something does not mean that I perceive it same way? So you see this nullify the limit, "no harm to others and yourself" defined by your principle.

Well, freedom of speech is important.

I am not familiar with the cartoons you are speaking of. Perhaps their intent WAS to be offensive, which would be wrong

Here you are contradicting yourself or more like putting a limit on freedom of speech. You are pretty much saying: you should be allowed to say whatever you want but your intent should not be offensive, which is decided by yourself. However, when a similar principle is used by Islam then there is an uproar given many negative labels.

which would be wrong, but not something to be outlawed.

If something is agreed upon to be harmful to a society, then why should it not be outlawed? So you think we should not outlaw drugs, sexual abuse, violation of human rights, stealing,murder, etc.?

brother uthman's question is still outstanding which is pretty much related to what I have said

Okay. That's another point to consider though. Is your definiton of 'harm' dependent on whether you feel that you have harmed a person, or whether that person feels that you have harmed them?

[Trumble]

The problem I have with the 'do what you want, as long as you harm none' is how do you know that you aren't harming anyone? :?

You don't, as you can never foresee all possibilities. But the same is true of just following the 'rules'. I wouldn't argue that such rules, be they of divine origin, reasoned wisdom, or experience are more effective in preventing harm, but it still not infrequently happens that following them causes more harm to others than not doing so.

On the subject of 'banning', as long as the subject religion/cult's policy isn't to harm others, there can never be any justification for limiting religious freedom. The suggestion that just because 'I' believe my religion to be true that somehow gives 'me' the right to force my views down other's throats is simply arrogant in the extreme. And if you look at the facts I'm afraid Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and even Buddhism have all caused more harm to others than Wiccans ever have! Maybe they should all be banned instead?

In last century majority of Germans voted for Adolf Hitler

No, they didn't. Check your facts.

[MSalman]

On the subject of 'banning', as long as the subject religion/cult's policy isn't to harm others, there can never be any justification for limiting religious freedom. The suggestion that just because 'I' believe my religion to be true that somehow gives 'me' the right to force my views down other's throats is simply arrogant in the extreme.

as asked before: who decides something is harmful to others and hence should be banned? I wonder how your idea is different from the idea which you see as extreme and arrogant. How are you exempted from this extremism and arrogance when you force your ideology down the throat of other people? In other words, if we are to follow your ideology then you want us to live by your standards since you preach that we can do whatever we want as long certain things/teachings harmful to others should be banned. So if some individuals believe that religion itself is harmful and evil to society then by your logic they can ban it but at the same you talk about freedom of speech and practice.

This idea itself is arrogant and extreme. So I have to wonder why rely on a methodology which is inconsistent and self contradictory.

PS: the usage of the word 'you' is general and not specifically addressing you, Trumble.

[Gubbleknucker]

I try to condense the conflict:

Secular issues with religious morality:
1) The profit/guru/high supreme priest/whatever essentially determines what is moral. This gives him absolute power, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. He can use this power to make people do pretty much anything and still believe that it is right.
2) The focus is doing God's will, and not doing what is right. Would you stand up to a corrupt God? How can you claim to know what God's will actually is?
3) It appears to be a means of control.
4) It has a bad track record. There is even a discussion on this forum about which is worse: Christian child-beating or Muslim wife-beating.

Religious issues with secular morality:
1) The individual/society/culture/whatever determines what is moral. They may be fallible, and furthermore, how dare they claim to be able to make such judgments as should be left to God?
2) There is no sin, so even if something is against God's will, it may not be considered wrong.
3) There is less of a sense of guidance. Without God's guidance you have to decide what is right on your own. What if you decide wrongly?
4) There is a notably corrupt non-religious leader in history: Joseph Stalin.


If you think my list is incomplete or biased, feel free to make your own list or add to this one.

[P-P]

i think Islam is better than "do what you want, as long as you harm none"

Islam teaches us that every thing that we done

it will be get judged by Allah SWT

that way, we wont waste any time that we have for doing any useless activity

if you guys have a motto "Time is Money"

we, Moslem have other related to time too, which is "Time is Good Deed Harvest Field" or something like that

"do what you want, as long as you harm none" basicly related to liberal freedom that practiced by general people in western civilization

Islam teaches us to do good deed as many as you can, and since productive activity could count as good deed as long its in halal working field

then we can consider Islam is also teaches to use our time carefully and used it for productive

[Clover]

Wiccans? Neopagans? These are the bad fruits of freedom of religions. I would rather prefer that USA law was based strictly on puritanism, which would ban all such sects.

Onward Ignorance!

Out of all of that, all I could hear was "I hate freedom of religion, I hate it!"

Well, good luck with that sir.

[Amadeus85]

Onward Ignorance!

Out of all of that, all I could hear was "I hate freedom of religion, I hate it!"

Well, good luck with that sir.

Religious freedom gives always bad fruits. This is a traditional catholic teachings of dozens o popes, I have right to believe in this. The state has responsibility to protect the souls od the people, allowing various sects to promote their beliefs, the state let many of souls to be destroyed. Mormonism, jaehova witnesses, neo pagans, scientologists, seventh day adevntists, oriental sects, the ideal state should ban prmoting of such sects and support and promote only truth (which in catholic country it is catholicism). I can understand that You have different opinion, unfortunately in liberal democracy false and truth are honoured at same level. Good and evil are something that we can choose, because both good and evil are promoted. And I didnt have such views because of some book that I read ( as I have found out Donoso Cortez,Jaime Balmes or Ramiro de Maeztu very lately), I base my opinions on personal observations of modern world, which USA is its essence.

[Gubbleknucker]

Most people don't like being called evil, nor do I appreciate bigots.

The truth is, you're not saving anyone when you convert them to Catholicism, especially by force...

Oh, and keep in mind: You're on an Islamic forum. According to most of the people here, YOU'RE the one that needs to be saved.

[Clover]

Religious freedom gives always bad fruits. This is a traditional catholic teachings of dozens o popes, I have right to believe in this. The state has responsibility to protect the souls od the people, allowing various sects to promote their beliefs, the state let many of souls to be destroyed. Mormonism, jaehova witnesses, neo pagans, scientologists, seventh day adevntists, oriental sects, the ideal state should ban prmoting of such sects and support and promote only truth (which in catholic country it is catholicism). I can understand that You have different opinion, unfortunately in liberal democracy false and truth are honoured at same level. Good and evil are something that we can choose, because both good and evil are promoted. And I didnt have such views because of some book that I read ( as I have found out Donoso Cortez,Jaime Balmes or Ramiro de Maeztu very lately), I base my opinions on personal observations of modern world, which USA is its essence.

You base your opinoins on stupidity and ignorance. Fine, when you decide to try to force "evil" people like me, to stop being allowed or to stop being public about our beliefs, don't blame us, if we show you what evil can be.

Good luck, I hope you find a nation, or people, with ignorant beliefs, just like yours, I am sure you can.

[glo]

Amadeus, if God gave us the freedom to choose our way of life/faith, then it only seems right that human beings extend that freedom to each other too.

To think that there is only good in one's own religion and only bad in all others is simply untrue, and it would be very naive to think so.

Out of interest, if religious practice was forced upon people (as has happened in Christian countries in the past and may still happen in other countries now), would it make people better? Would it make people true believers and would it make them love and desire to follow God from the bottom of their hearts?
I fear it would achieve the opposite ...

So is it not better to allow people free choice and let them come to God in God's timing and with God's calling?

[Amadeus85]

[QUOTE=glo;1202920]

Amadeus, if God gave us the freedom to choose our way of life/faith, then it only seems right that human beings extend that freedom to each other too

.

Did God really give us freedom to choose our way of life/faith? Hmm, so why Lord so many times punished Israelis for worshipping gold calf or turning into false idols. Why Adam and Eve were forced to leave Eden, if they only chose their way. And Im not saying that the all non catholics faiths in catholic country should be banned. Only their propaganda, which leads believers astray. Just like it was last time when Europe had christian system.

To think that there is only good in one's own religion and only bad in all others is simply untrue, and it would be very naive to think so.

I dont think that good is only in one(mine) religion and evil is in all others. Other religions have also good aspects, but only one religion is true. So in ideal state, like it was Christendom Europe, state and the Church were two swords of Christ the king, protecting believers from hurting their souls by a heresy.

Out of interest, if religious practice was forced upon people (as has happened in Christian countries in the past and may still happen in other countries now), would it make people better? Would it make people true believers and would it make them love and desire to follow God from the bottom of their hearts?
I fear it would achieve the opposite ...

When the state believes that its political power comes from God, creator of the universe, it is also responsible for protecting the christian nature of the state till the end of the times. The state should work for the common good, which is salvation of the people. The fear from the hellfire is a good argument to let the Chuch and state protect the monoideological nature of the country. If we also read that the Catholic Church (I dont know how it was for protestants) was against such ideas as liberal democracy, freedom of religion and secular state till 60's in XX century, we see that this anti democratic, theocratic idea was a position of Church for millenium. While the ideas of liberal democracy, freedom of religion were ideas of enemies of Church, jacobins, masons, revolutionists.

So is it not better to allow people free choice and let them come to God in God's timing and with God's calling?

It is useful to compare religiousity and christian faith for example 100 years ago in Europe and nowadays. For me its clear. Besided this is not my idea, it is eternal christian (catholic) doctrine of the social reign of the Christ the king.

[Amadeus85]

[QUOTE=Clover;1202882]

You base your opinoins on stupidity and ignorance

.

No, this is an eternal christian teaching(of course forgotten nowadays by most of "churches" which we see its effects now). The social reign of Christ the king(yes, right, the king, not a "friend","homie" or other modern interpretations of our Lord) is an eternal element of the natural law, the law of God written during the centuries, along with other elements like family. justice, possesion. So this is no even my opinion, I didnt choose it, I just found out it.

Fine, when you decide to try to force "evil" people like me, to stop being allowed or to stop being public about our beliefs, don't blame us, if we show you what evil can be.

I can not do this, because the demoliberal monster is dominating and the european states treat equally (well at least in constitution, which is just a piece of paper) catholicism with african shamanism or mormonism. So the reality (as we live in schism of the being since French Revolution) wont come back soon. Especially in USA, state built on anti christian, masonic rules, which it spreads to other parts of the world. So dont worry, in a world when Lady Gaga has more air time than Mozart, and piece of paper painted with closed eyes is called an art, the religious freedom will be safe and alive.

Good luck, I hope you find a nation, or people, with ignorant beliefs, just like yours, I am sure you can.

These are dozens of popes, the best(in my opinion) civilization that ever existed - Christendom, so I like this place and these people.

[Clover]

[QUOTE=Amadeus85;1203047]

.

No, this is an eternal christian teaching(of course forgotten nowadays by most of "churches" which we see its effects now). The social reign of Christ the king(yes, right, the king, not a "friend","homie" or other modern interpretations of our Lord) is an eternal element of the natural law, the law of God written during the centuries, along with other elements like family. justice, possesion. So this is no even my opinion, I didnt choose it, I just found out it.



I can not do this, because the demoliberal monster is dominating and the european states treat equally (well at least in constitution, which is just a piece of paper) catholicism with african shamanism or mormonism. So the reality (as we live in schism of the being since French Revolution) wont come back soon. Especially in USA, state built on anti christian, masonic rules, which it spreads to other parts of the world. So dont worry, in a world when Lady Gaga has more air time than Mozart, and piece of paper painted with closed eyes is called an art, the religious freedom will be safe and alive.



These are dozens of popes, the best(in my opinion) civilization that ever existed - Christendom, so I like this place and these people.

You choose it, cause your with it. Don't give me that crap, you chose to be the way you are, no one forced you. Jesus didn't, Allah didn't, Buddha didn't, and I didn't.

So it's monstrous to treat everyone fairly? I bet your in-favor of slavery too...


popes? Really, I wouldn't give them air to Confucius, Lao Tzu, Aristotle, or Archimedes. If you want a society where Jesus is above all, then try to change your nation to it, but don't get mad when the "evil" people like me, decide to fight for freedom.

[Gubbleknucker]

People like Amadeus85 are my main problem with religion.

I'll try and remember that most religious people don't share his views.
[/off topic]

[Tony]

People like Amadeus85 are my main problem with religion.

I'll try and remember that most religious people don't share his views.
[/off topic]

Ive been here mate, when veiwing religion its hard but try to not let the followers of the religion sway your veiws of the system, the ppl and the religion are seperate and theres always going to be devout followers and name only followers. Hope this makes sense

[Pygoscelis]

Religious freedom gives always bad fruits. This is a traditional catholic teachings of dozens o popes, I have right to believe in this. The state has responsibility to protect the souls od the people, allowing various sects to promote their beliefs, the state let many of souls to be destroyed. Mormonism, jaehova witnesses, neo pagans, scientologists, seventh day adevntists, oriental sects, the ideal state should ban prmoting of such sects and support and promote only truth (which in catholic country it is catholicism). I can understand that You have different opinion, unfortunately in liberal democracy false and truth are honoured at same level. Good and evil are something that we can choose, because both good and evil are promoted. And I didnt have such views because of some book that I read ( as I have found out Donoso Cortez,Jaime Balmes or Ramiro de Maeztu very lately), I base my opinions on personal observations of modern world, which USA is its essence.

This is an argument for us to outlaw your own religion as well you know, which many will say is a corruption of the Judaism from which it sprang.

[Zafran]

People like Amadeus85 are my main problem with religion.

I'll try and remember that most religious people don't share his views.
[/off topic]

I agree. His views are the reason why europe is so scared of religion.

[Gubbleknucker]

I agree. His views are the reason why europe is so scared of religion.

I don't see any prevailing fear, or even dislike, of religion in Europe. In fact, I hazard to say that most of Europe is religious.

If there is, though, I would guess that any fear of religion there would be more because of history... The inquisition, crusades, ongoing "troubles" in Ireland, etc.